Author
Topic: 46mp sensor useless for landscape? (Read 24544 times)

Give us two exactly alike captured raw files so we can judge ourselvesJPG is not valid.

ABOUT MB

John Sheehy has done some calculations on how many Mp a good lens is capable of, and for example the Tamron SP90 is capable of much more than 100Mp (24x36mm sensor area.)

That would be 100mp at what MTF? A lot of people talk about lens resolution at an MTF 0% (which is ridiculous, the only time MTF 0% has ever been particularly valuable is when scientifically analyzing deep space star photos to determine if they might be binary or tertiary stars...as far as an image sensor is concerned 0% contrast means ZERO difference between pixels except what you get from noise.) A lot more people talk about MTF 9%/10%, which is the limit of HUMAN visual acuity (which, thanks to our brains, is a hell of a lot more acute than a pixelated bayer image sensor regarding what our lenses actually project onto our retinas, we effectively get biological superresolution with our eyes and are able to detect much finer gradations of contrast). The standard MTF for testing lens and camera resolution is MTF 50%, which is still pretty low in contrast overall, but high enough for cameras to detect enough difference between pixels that it doesn't just look like noise.

At an MTF 50%, the only way you could actually achieve 100mp worth of lens resolution would be at a very wide aperture with a perfect lens. At least PERFECT diffraction-limited f/2 lens that exhibited ZERO aberrations would barely be able to produce enough line pairs/millimeter (lp/mm) for 100mp, and monochrome 100mp at that. You would probably need a perfect f/1.4 lens to produce enough resolution for a bayer 100mp sensor. That is ignoring system blur, which impacts overall system resolution. You might get a total system spatial resolution of 245lp/mm out of the whole setup, which is about "52mp" at MTF 50% for a perfect f/2 lens and a 100mp monochrome sensor, and maybe "35mp" or so for a 100mp color bayer sensor.

As far as I can tell, there is already diffraction blurring in the samples posted by Mikael at f/4. If it was really "75mp equivalent", I would expect to see FAR more brick detail, but at 100% there is very little. There is also a noticeable drop in contrast between the f/4 and f/8 images, which indicates that diffraction is indeed affecting the image at the narrower aperture.

The perception of diffraction is very skewed in general among photographers. It is not as if the moment diffraction occurs, your IQ goes completely to hell. Diffraction gradually eats away first at contrast, then at detail, as you progressively stop down. Once you pass the DLA of the sensor, diffraction's impact is largely in the area of contrast...when the outer regions of the Airy PATTERN begin to affect other pixels. The primary point of light is concentrated in the center of the Airy Pattern...the Airy DISC. It is only when the Airy Disc grows larger than the size of a pixel and begins to affect other pixels that you actually experience visible diffraction softening.

I am not sure what the DLA of the Nikon V1 is...I would guess somewhere around f/4, so its not surprising that there is a loss of contrast at f/8. I would expect that blurring sets in pretty soon after f/8, though.

There are lot of more details in 75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness at F-8 F11 compared to F4 considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

"75" Mp compared to Canon 21Mp (borrowed from dpreview and MR)I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Sure, more resolution is never "worse". But as far as I could gather, the original argument on the DPReview forum was that there was NO diffraction. There absolutely IS diffraction. You can't avoid diffraction, and it always sets in earlier as you reduce pixel size, so claiming it doesn't exist was just ridiculous, hence my reply.

On a focal-length limited basis, yes, a cropped sensor has a reach advantage, and a sensor with smaller pixels will always capture more detail of a SMALLER AREA than a larger sensor. However if you have the ability to correct the focal length discrepancy, the larger sensor will always outperform. Slap on a 250mm lens onto that 5D III and take a step back, and its IQ will probably trounce the V1's. A high density sensor is never a trade-off for better glass (especially glass with a larger physical aperture (entrance pupil), which leads to improvements in other aspects of IQ, such as boke.)

The thing you are forgetting is that what you want is an actual 75mp Full-Frame sensor. A 75mp-equivalent crop sensor doesn't buy you anything other than the potential for extra reach with fewer pixels in actuality. You aren't actually getting a 75mp sensor with the Nikon V1. Your literally getting a 10.1mp sensor, plain and simple as that. You could argue that you can do mosaics with it, and sure, you could....assuming your scene and subjects were entirely static. However on a pixel-size-normal basis, a 10.1mp V1 is a FAR cry from a true 75mp FF sensor. Be careful not to confuse conflated concepts with actual reality.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

Let me reassure you Tony, you're MDII+24TSEII does not get outperformed by a NEX 5n.

I shoot with a 5DII and 24TSEII. I also shoot with a NEX 5n, along with a very nice 28mm Contax G Zeiss. For that matter I also shoot with my 24TSEII on the NEX 5n thanks to the wonders of the Conurus adapter. I also make my own large fine art prints. After a year or so since I've had the 5n, and numerous prints made with both cameras, here is my take.

With the 5DII I typically can typically print up to 20x30 inches without compromising any image integrity. With the 5n, that point is more like 16x24 inches.

Now for smaller prints, it does become more difficult to tell the difference. But, if you are downsampling the images 5DII images to the same print size as the 5n, there is no way the 5DII will look worse. Converserly, if you upsample 5n images to 5DII dimensions, there is no way the 5n will look better.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

Let me reassure you Tony, you're MDII+24TSEII does not get outperformed by a NEX 5n.

I shoot with a 5DII and 24TSEII. I also shoot with a NEX 5n, along with a very nice 28mm Contax G Zeiss. For that matter I also shoot with my 24TSEII on the NEX 5n thanks to the wonders of the Conurus adapter. I also make my own large fine art prints. After a year or so since I've had the 5n, and numerous prints made with both cameras, here is my take.

With the 5DII I typically can typically print up to 20x30 inches without compromising any image integrity. With the 5n, that point is more like 16x24 inches.

Now for smaller prints, it does become more difficult to tell the difference. But, if you are downsampling the images 5DII images to the same print size as the 5n, there is no way the 5DII will look worse. Converserly, if you upsample 5n images to 5DII dimensions, there is no way the 5n will look better.

There are lot of more details in 75Mp , offcourse you can see blurring , softness at F-8 F11 compared to F4 considering individual pixel size and the corresponding 75 Mp

"75" Mp compared to Canon 21Mp (borrowed from dpreview and MR)I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Sure, more resolution is never "worse". But as far as I could gather, the original argument on the DPReview forum was that there was NO diffraction. There absolutely IS diffraction. You can't avoid diffraction, and it always sets in earlier as you reduce pixel size, so claiming it doesn't exist was just ridiculous, hence my reply.

On a focal-length limited basis, yes, a cropped sensor has a reach advantage, and a sensor with smaller pixels will always capture more detail of a SMALLER AREA than a larger sensor. However if you have the ability to correct the focal length discrepancy, the larger sensor will always outperform. Slap on a 250mm lens onto that 5D III and take a step back, and its IQ will probably trounce the V1's. A high density sensor is never a trade-off for better glass (especially glass with a larger physical aperture (entrance pupil), which leads to improvements in other aspects of IQ, such as boke.)

The thing you are forgetting is that what you want is an actual 75mp Full-Frame sensor. A 75mp-equivalent crop sensor doesn't buy you anything other than the potential for extra reach with fewer pixels in actuality. You aren't actually getting a 75mp sensor with the Nikon V1. Your literally getting a 10.1mp sensor, plain and simple as that. You could argue that you can do mosaics with it, and sure, you could....assuming your scene and subjects were entirely static. However on a pixel-size-normal basis, a 10.1mp V1 is a FAR cry from a true 75mp FF sensor. Be careful not to confuse conflated concepts with actual reality.

Who has said it is an actual 75Mp sensor? the individual pixel size corresponds to 75Mp and a 24x36mm sensor.

I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Simple fact of the matter is, its NOT 75mp, its 10.1mp. The fact that the pixels are smaller, and packed into the area of a smaller sensor, is only meaningful when comparing cameras with different size sensors and pixel densities at the same focal length. An 85mm lens for the V1 is only a 230mm lens on FF, so its far from improbable that one could buy a 200mm or 250mm lens for the 5D III to normalize framing. Outside of a focal length limited scenario, the 10.1mp of the V1, even if it is technically equivalent to a 75mp FF sensor, will always produce the lesser image compared to a FF sensor with lower pixel density but more megapixels overall. That is simply because when one normalizes framing (makes the Angle of View between both cameras the same), the FF camera simply has more pixels...it gathers more light and more information for the same exact scene as the smaller camera with its smaller sensor.

Now, assuming one actually had the option of using a 75mp FF sensor, certainly...it will perform better than either the 1V or the 5D III. But the 1V is not a 75mp FF sensor, its a 10.1mp 2.7x crop sensor, and can only outperform on a focal-length limited scenario, and only in certain ways (i.e. in total detail captured per focal length). A more pixel dense sensor will experience more photon shot noise, will have a lower saturation point, and will generally gather less light overall than a larger sensor, which will have none of those problems. Same thing goes for lenses...the physically smaller lenses designed for the Nikon 1 series will usually have smaller physical apertures for any given focal length, so they will usually allow less overall light through.

It really doesn't matter what angle you try to come at the problem from. Every way you slice it, a larger sensor with more pixels, even if they are less dense, will always outperform on a framing-normal basis.

Who has said it is an actual 75Mp sensor? the individual pixel size corresponds to 75Mp if a 24x36mm sensor was filled with that pixel size . And it shows a result together with a 85/1, 8 and at F- 8 which is not optimal from the point of view of diffraction, but is perfectly acceptable results.

Ankorwatt effectively said he would take a 75mp camera over a 21mp camera...referring to the V1, which is not a 75mp camera...its a 10.1mp camera.

Anyway, your still misunderstanding my argument. No, the V1 85mm test at f/8 is not terrible. It's usable. I'd entirely expect that...f/8 is really not what I consider a narrow aperture. I'd consider f/16 to be narrow such that diffraction could pose a problem at 1:1 crop viewing.

Again though. Compare the V1 85mm f/8 setup with a 5D III 250mm f/8 setup. The 5D III setup will trounce the V1, for the exact same framing of an identical subject. Claiming that the V1 is "like a 75mp FF camera" is very misleading, and gives a false sense of what the camera is capable of. It may have the same pixel size as a 75mm FF camera, but the similarities STOP there. An actual 75mp FF camera is a whole world of difference, with MANY benefits over a Nikon 1 V1, and claiming the two are effectively equivalent is simply wrong.

I rather take 75Mp and it will allways be better compared to 21 Mp whatever lens you use.

Not too many way to interpret that. You explicitly said you would "rather take 75mp" (and I can only assume, given the context, that by that you mean "take the V1") and that "it will always be better compared to 21mp" (and by that I can only assume, given the context, you mean better than the 5D III), and you even qualified that with "whatever lens you use".

Sorry, that is plain and simply incorrect. If you throw a 250mm lens on the 5D III, to normalize angle of view with the V1 using an 85mm lens...and by "normalize angle of view" I mean produce the same exact scene and framing in the output image, the 5D III WILL outperform the V1. The images will effectively appear to be the same, but the 5D III image will have more than twice as many pixels, so twice as much detail, which leads to better microcontrast, better sharpness, etc. etc.

If we factor in the larger lens aperture, greater light gathering power, lower noise, higher SNR, and all the other benefits of the FF camera setup...every aspect of IQ should be superior with the 5D III.

If he wants 75mp, then 80mp is even better, right? So, he's shooting with a Phase One IQ180, right? If not, he's discussing images from hypothetical, nonexistent cameras, which is nonsensical and totally irrelevant.

I think every one knows what he meant and if not it is you who has a interpretation failure. He rather take a 75Mp in the future (every one understand that) and shows my pictures, was wrong with that?

You said earlier that you saw softness even at F- 4 etc.There is is no real softness at f- 4, but the image was not properly sharpen when I showed it first time . Then you are right about difraktion affect at f-8 but that is common knowledgefor almost every one.

Why would you assume he suddenly moved to some hypothetical "future" context, when the context at hand involved 75mp only as an extrapolation from the pixel density of the V1, and the argument at hand was explicitly regarding the V1's IQ?